http://blog.ted.com/2010/05/dan_ariely_asks.php
Thoughts?
Cliffs:
- Researchers posed an experiment
- Three reward categories: low, medium, high
- Results found that those with the highest rewards performed the worst
Trending Content
| +88 | GF doesn’t care about her looks | 57 | 17h | |
| +60 | Affair with my Associate… In Desperate Need for Advice | 23 | 1d | |
| +51 | How to sound more eloquent? | 19 | 12h | |
| +40 | 400k/year in HVAC sales? | 26 | 2d | |
| +37 | WSO Ranking On Resume??? | 9 | 10h | |
| +37 | Are you “less ambitious” for having long term goals outside of NYC | 13 | 15h | |
| +33 | Would you rather live alone in an outer borough or with roommates in Manhattan? | 23 | 3d | |
| +28 | Why do people listen to Jim Cramer Investing Advice? | 11 | 15h | |
| +27 | Carnivore Diet | 12 | 16h | |
| +26 | Is my boss gaslighting me? | 3 | 1d |
Career Resources
I didn't read the whole thing but all it proves is that it's not because you pay people higher bonuses that they work better.
I think we all agree that people are not brilliant because they are paid more. They are paid more because they are brilliant.
This was not a very good article simply because the parameters of the tests are opaque. How many people were in each group? Perhaps the Indians were nervous about winning/not winning five months pay and that affected their performance. Perhaps the MIT students were too small a sample, or the high compensation group had a class clown that threw off their concentration.
Both groups should have been offered both bonuses or there should have been a very large sample taken to generate a better study. This is a pseudo scientific study at best.
It seems absurd to suggest that people will put forth less effort when they have more to gain from their labors. Of course there are other factors affecting worker attitudes and performance but to suggest the high bonuses paid to bankers make them worse at their job goes against common sense.
By this logic, the burger flippers at McDonald's should be all be model employees and the lawyers at a high powered firm should be lazy and totally incompetent.
So they're trying to pitch to the world that a bunch of blue-collar Sanjays throwing tennis balls at a target for 50 fucking cents somehow has a connection to bankers and bonuses? I've seen third grade science fair projects that make more sense than this shit
rooster is on point
this is simply retarded.
Attempting to save this thread, we had a speaker from an hr consultancy at my uni give a speech of how bankers should be paid like strippers, forced to pay a fee for their job and then earn money given performance, thoughts?
Any prop trader who makes no salary and makes his living on P&L alone will tell you that the cut he pays to the firm that provides his trading platform and clears his trades is no different than the "stage rent" paid by a stripper.
For those more visually inclined, here is a pretty interesting presentation of the information:
they spelled "weird" wrong in the animation :(
lol is that article trying to pass itself off as a properly run scientific study?? I think the science experiment I did for the science fair in middle school was better run than the one in the article
Sint repellendus modi minima consequatur nisi maiores sint. Omnis dolorum expedita molestiae quia eius. Facere quo quasi suscipit eum blanditiis commodi. Rerum earum soluta cupiditate ipsam eveniet corporis corporis eius.
See All Comments - 100% Free
WSO depends on everyone being able to pitch in when they know something. Unlock with your email and get bonus: 6 financial modeling lessons free ($199 value)
or Unlock with your social account...